BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?

Subject: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: vectis
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:01 PM

Am I the only one that feels that Ground Zero is a war grave and should never be built on.

I have seen artists impressions of the proposed new buildings and am shocked that anyone is even considering building on the site.

It is the only known last resting place (no grave being possible) of a couple of thousand people How can it possibly be built on?

A memorial and garden on the site would be a reminder, yet another skyscraper in New York serves no purpose whatsoever.

Is it insensitivity or greed that eccourages such desecration?

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:08 PM

It is the only known last resting place (no grave being possible) of a couple of thousand people

So what to do? I know! Bomb hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq!

What a good idea

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: SINSULL
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:20 PM

Another sad but true: most of the remains (ashes and microscopic pieces) of the September 11th victims are in in a landfill on either Staten Island or New Jersey. I forget where they carted it all off to. I do think it is "sacred" ground, as much as Gettysburg or Omaha Beach and should be treated accordingly. At the same time, the economic survival of lower Manhattan may well depend upon restoring the businesses and homes which were lost. I have no problem with rebuilding a complex of buildings and apartment dwellings which incorporate a memorial or park so that the dead are honored.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: SINSULL
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:22 PM

a second thought. I will be interested in seeing if there is a marked difference in the opinions of those who have stood at Ground Zero and experienced the devastation in person and those who have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:25 PM

SINSULL,

Are dead Americans more important than dead 'foriegners'?

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:27 PM

Actually, it isn't a resting place in the sense that it is where human remains have been interred, as all the bodies and body parts were removed from the site, and given to loved ones when identification was possible.

So, I disagree with the idea that Ground Zero should be considered a mass war grave, because technically, it isn't a grave site, but an accident site, or the site of the attack, or whatever you want to call it.

I definitely don't think it should be left empty. I also believe it should definitely have a memorial site, which I'm sure it will have. However, I am utterly turned off by attempts to somehow militarize the location with suggestions of "war site" or a "war grave" as I don't view it that way, and I would hate to see our future generations have the events distorted like that, just to serve current propaganda purposes.

"Is it insensitivity or greed that eccourages such desecration?"

Again, for there to be any desecration, people must first share the belief that this is sacred, holy ground. I think it would be very difficult to reach a national consensus on that point.

Secondly, I don't think it is insensitive to want to build a memorial, and put something of use to the New York community that lost the buildings, which included retail businesses, offices, and some residences. I think there is plenty of greed among the potential developers, but that doesn't mean that is the sole motivating factor in developers' desire to be involved in the rebuilding of the site.

In the long run, I don't think we Americans are going to continue to view the site as emotionally as some, like you vectis, perceive it today. I think a legitimate, positive, appropriately respectful and tasteful commercial use of the site can and should be made, in conjunction with a memorial. For me, that would be respectful of the living and the dead, as well as honoring both our past and our future.

I really dislike the idea, especially for the New Yorkers who live and work in the area, of leaving a gaping hole, or making the site exclusively into a memorial. That just is too disturbing to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:29 PM

Well said, GUEST

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:29 PM

I haven't seen the artists renditions but did any of them try to design a bilding that, while funtional, might actually look like the worlds largest headstone? I'm only hald serious here but....

I would like to see whatever is built be designed so that other than corner elevators that are built into massave "feet" that waht would usually be the first floor would be open so that people coule walk under the building thru a memorial sculpture and fountains garden. Maybe an atrium?

Just thinking...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:33 PM

Definitely some kind of non-war memorial, but some good use of the area, too, which allows residents to look forward and carry on. I like Bobert's idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: SINSULL
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:38 PM

GUEST #1: No. And the remains of dead Americans and dead non-Americans at the World Trade Center site deserve the same respect.

GUEST #2: When the towers fell, the remains of thousands of people were scattered in the cloud of ash over lower Manhattan and carried on the wind. In my opinion, it is their final resting place.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:43 PM

I definitely think the idea of it as a war memorial is wrong, because it wasn't military people who died there, but civilians, going about their lives on a beautiful, warm September morning. That is the incongruity of the image that sticks with me--that beautiful blue sky. For me, that would be the hopeful part--something to get us to look up. No offense Bobert and katlaughing, but I don't like the idea of the memorial being under anything, much less the new buildings. It kinda creeps me out, in that "interred" tomblike sense.

Though I love the idea of incorporating a fountain and atrium, I also prefer the idea of it being out of doors, rather than enclosed. I kinda wish they would have put some aspect of the memorial up high, on top of the buildings, though--skyward, heavenward? Something that memorializes those lost in the planes too, not just the buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:49 PM

Over the millenia, people have fallen and died in pretty much every square foot of the landmass we call home.

If we were to make a 'sacred' memorial for everyone, we wouldn't have much space left. There's not much future in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: nutty
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:54 PM

I would have liked to see something that signified "peace". I don't think more offices could possibly do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 07:01 PM

There was a substantial amount of plaza surrounding the buildings that was just open concrete. There's plenty of room to rebuild something there (and that part of Manhattan needs it), and still have room for an appropriate memorial.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 07:16 PM

Why is everyone terming it a "war" memorial?   I have not heard that term used ANYWHERE except for this forum. It seems that it is a term being used by some troll trying to start his or her own little war. I guess that person isn't much different from the people they are critising.

Yes, the site needs some way of memorializing those who lost their lives.    The troll was wrong when it said that all the bodies were recovered. When those towers collapsed many bodies were turned to dust along with the concrete and steel.   That dust scattered across the area.   That area should be a site for people to remember those who perished and for all of us to think about what brought the event on.   Future generations might be able to learn some lessons.

Troll may not feel it is "sacred" ground, but it is wrong when it says that the American people would not consider the ground "holy". Troll does not speak for anyone other than itself.   

That said, the area is certainly going through some difficult times. Many of those lucky to have survived the attack ended up without jobs or losing their business.   Some sort of compromise needs to be worked out.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Gareth
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 07:44 PM

Well, before too many entrenched positions are made, the Wrecks of HMS Royal Oak, Prince of Wales, Repulse, Hood, Edinburgh etc. are classified as war graves, and it is proper that these are respected as such. And there are many crosses' in Europe,( where the poppies grow) and the Middle East and elsewhere.

For what its worth, from this side of the pond, a memorial at WTC is called for at the site, but life must go on, otherwise the terrorists will have won. Simple yet factual, on the same simplicity as the Viet-Nam memorial in Washington, or the Merchant Seaman's Memorial in Trinity Square, London EC3.

A few songs/poems on that subject :-

D Day Dodgers (the McColl version) Last verse is poignant.

.
Or McCrae's "In Flanders Fields"


The memorial inscription at Kohima :- "For your tomorrow , they gave their today."

And full text – "Normandy Orchards"

NORMANDY ORCHARDS
Keith Marsden

They're building a camp on the cornfields at Allingham,
Bulldozers churning and changing the land.
Long barbed-wire fences and acres of tarmac,
Nissen huts ranged where the crops used to stand.
Wide-eyed young village girls, giggling and staring at,
Tanks and transporters that darken the sky.
There's convoys of lorries with fresh faces peering out,
So many young men come learning to die.

CHORUS:
They say you can still hear the village hall band,
Grey, ghostly couples still glide round the floor.
But Normandy orchards were waiting to welcome,
New partners for death in the mad dance of war.

Mother has started a Comforts Committee,
But Reverend John's more concerned about sin.
Hughes at the White Swan is rubbing his hands a lot,
Watching the troops and the profits roll in.
Eager young squaddies with overdone courtesy,
Tipping their caps to the girls going by.
But too soon from school to be licentious soldiery,
So many young men come learning to die.

CHORUS

And mother would have a blue fit if she knew about,
Lieutenant Johnson and walks in the wood.
She's laid down the law and she's always gone on about,
Men being beasts so a girl must be good.
But even she'd laugh at our clumsy propriety,
Me far too fearful and him far too shy.
She might even pity his lonely bewilderment,
One of the young men come learning to die.

Chorus

And peace came to Allingham many long years ago,
Time, passing by, healed the scars on the land.
Tanks on the village green just a fond memory now,
Corn grows again where the huts used to stand.
Yet when I walk in the woods on a summer's night,
At the trees' edge when the wind starts to sigh.
I still hear their voices all rising in harmony,
Lost, wasted young men, come learning to die.

Chorus


From Picking Sooty Blackberries, The Songs of Keith Marsden.


This might be grounds for some considered thought.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 07:54 PM

A small portion should become the George W. Bush Peace and Freedom Memorial Park.



Here in DC we are used to seeing the renameing of many of our pre existing landmarks such as the Washington National Airport.

Now its the Ronald Reagan National airport.
but for some reason we all forget and call it National.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: SINSULL
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 08:04 PM

JFK was Idlewild and occasionally is called so by an ancient newscaster or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 08:06 PM

Ron, if you read the original post by vectis, he says in his opening sentence:

"Am I the only one that feels that Graound Zero is a war grave and should never be built on."

So, are you saying that he is a troll for suggesting it? I would disagree with you, even though I disagree with his suggestion that it should be a war memorial. He does have the right to voice his opinions about, and I don't think his opinion is that different from many, though certainly not all, Americans.

Now, I said:

"...people must first share the belief that this is sacred, holy ground. I think it would be very difficult to reach a national consensus on that point."

I didn't mean to anger anyone with that statement, and perhaps I should have been clearer in what I personally think of the site (which isn't the same thing as the point I quote above). I believe the site is now of great national significance, and is deserving of an appropriate memorial that honors the civilian loss of life in the attack.

I much prefer to leave the gruesome details of the attack itself out of the memorial, and to focus on the uplifting aspects of how the attack changed us, and how we wish to memorialize those who died. One thing that deeply bothered me in the wake of the attacks was the emphasis and attention being heaped upon the firefighters, police, and paramedics. Now, that is not to say that they weren't deserving of our admiration, etc. but I did feel that attention took away from all the others who also were "just doing their job" that day who also were lost. Not much attention or honor has ever been given to the janitors, the secretaries, the restaurant dishwashers lost that day.

As to the idea that the site is sacred or holy ground, as I said, I think it would be very difficult to reach a national consensus on that. I believe many, maybe even a majority of Americans consider it sacred, but I think there are also many (especially those with religious beliefs that say that sacred ground is something only to be associated with their god (like a church, temple, etc). Even if we could reach something nearing a majority in the polls agreeing it was sacred ground, I don't think there will ever be much agreement in how to treat it as such. In other words, someone like vectis will say, it is sacred, should not be used for commercial buildings, and should have a war memorial. Others will say, not a war memorial, but a memorial of some sort, and I think we can have commercial uses of the site. Still others would say the memorial, should be an American memorial, and that America is a Christian nation, so the sacralization of the site should be in a Christian vein. Others would say that wouldn't be appropriate, because people of other religions died, so we should have a memorial that honors the religions of all the people who died...

I like the idea of a national monument much more than sacred ground for those reasons. This wasn't an act of god, but an act of terror.

I agree that the dust or vapors or souls or whatever people wish to call what the people who perished, whose remains were never recovered, was dispersed surrounding the site. But that included all of lower Manhattan, so is all of that area to be considered sacred for that reason? Where should the boundaries be drawn where the sacred ground ends, and non-sacred New York begins?

I mean no offense to anyone by participating here, and I don't think anyone is trolling in this thread. I think people are expressing their views about how we should memorialize the dead, while honoring the living, and doing a very fine job of it. We need not have a flame war over this. People have the right to their feelings about the day, about the circumstances, about what they would personally like to see in a memorial, and what they wouldn't. There is nothing "trolling" about that, so long as we all remain largely civil.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 09:11 PM

Guest, I called it a troll not for what it said, but for the fact that it would not use a name.   Why do you refer to it as a "he"?   Either you know something that I don't, I missed something in its statement that gave it away, or you are making a very sexist remark. A woman wouldn't have a point of view? SHame you troll.

As for your comments on "sacred", I consider it sacred ground on a very ecumenical sense. A great spirit was lost on that day, one that effected all religions and beliefs, even those that don't have any belief. Follow? It is confusing, but that ground deserves a certain respect as it is a resting place.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Cluin
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 09:49 PM

Oh, that Ground Zero. I thought you were referring to Hiroshima.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 10:25 PM

To clarify: I like Bobert's idea of an atrium etc. I, too, though, would prefer to see it in the open air. A lot of peoples' livelihoods were taken away that day, as well as their companions. If they want it rebuilt so that they can pick up the pieces and rebuild their lives, who are we to say no?

Sorry, I do not consider ground sacred because of loss of life. I do consider it to be a significant site and worthy of memorialising those lives lost, though.

I would imagine BillD has had it up to ^here with nameless Guests, the ones who esp. troll the waters with a seemingly pathological need to denigrate the USA and so what if he decided to give them whatfor? We've had plenty of "trash the Americans" threads in the past and they do wear thin.
Sorry, wrong thread for this bit.
kat

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Bert
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 10:57 PM

I see your point vectis, but think that we should build a very impressive memorial there, something larger than the twin towers.

Sinsul, I have not been there but imagine that, if I do visit, I would feel the same horror and awe and reverence that I felt when I visited Lidice.

I'm thinking that we can't just leave it empty.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 11:14 PM

Kat, it is more than a site that was the scene of a loss of life. There are bodies that were never recovered and that ground was the last spot that many of these human beings took their last breath. For all intents and purposes, those bodies are still in that ground.   It would be like putting up a shopping mall over Arlington.

From an historic viewpoint, we can argue back and forth over the semantics of calling it a battleground.   For most of the world, that site is the spot where life on this planet was altered. As historic preservationists, there is some sort of respect that needs to be paid.

It is amazing. I read an interesting article on some people who are trying to preserve stone walls in New England. Many of the walls that farmers erected several hundred years ago are being scavenged or torn down. People want to preserve this. There are people who climb trees and spend months sitting to preserve an historic redwood. A lunch counter in Alabama was saved when the Woolworths went out of business in order for future generations to see where the civil rights movement began to be seen in the eyes of America. You can't sneeze in Ireland without hitting some sort of ancient ruin. Yet there are people who think nothing about forgetting a site that will be significant to future generations who will want to understand what 9/11 meant. This is more than just religious significance, or a monument to a war, this is a piece of history and lives that deserve some respect.   

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 12:31 AM

I don't think it's a war grave, but a crime grave. Similar to the place where the Hindenburg Zeppelin burned up or where the Reichstag burnt down or the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. As such, it should be accorded special recognition as a memorial site, yes.

It's been used as the excuse for a war, with yet another war on the way, but I would not call it a war grave, anymore than where the plane went down over Lockerbie, Scotland. Terrorism acts do not constitute "war", although war DOES constitute terrorism (but on a much larger and more drawn-out scale than isolated acts of terrorism, and killing far more people, generally speaking).

It's the location of a crime, and should be investigated on precisely that basis. Such an investigation might reveal far more intriguing things than Osama Bin Laden.

Oh, by the way, ALL ground is sacred, holy ground...and ought to be treated as such, with considerable care and forethought, instead of just being raped for a quick buck. I think about this as I watch souless, dreadful housing projects gobble up yet more once beautiful farmland and forest areas on the north edge of Toronto. The wretched little houses they build (all of them exactly the same) are so close together that you feel you could hardly even breathe if you lived in one of them. Who buys them, I wonder? And why would they want to live there?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Cluin
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:00 AM

I don't think it will sit empty for long. The land is just too valuable there. Taxes to be made, you betcha.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:44 AM

Yep. Money talks, sanity walks!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 10:48 AM

I have waivered on this one myself. After it first happened and when initial discussions took place, I felt that the buildings should be re-built and THAT would serve as the memorial.    However, after visiting the site and realizing how many bodies were not found my view changed.

It is easy to be cynical and say that the site needs to be developed for big business and collecting taxes, but in reality everyone is hurting.   A number of small, independent and family businesses closed down because of this. Commerce is important.   We just need to do it ethically.

As someone mentioned, there is a lot of space open at the site.   It would easy to preserve the footprint of the WTC and develop around that.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 10:50 AM

Ron, I meant no disrespect. I just don't consider that ground any more sacred than any other patch of this old planet we inhabit. I agree with LH that every bit is sacred and that we need to be treating it all with much more care and reverence than we do. If we were to consider all ground where great tragedy occurred as sacred there'd be a lot of real estate that would be involved.

I understand that there are remains there and they are symbolic, but they do not encompass the people who were lost, imo. The body is just a shell and I think it would be healthier for those still living if the area included a memorial, but also a vibrant, living community where they can come together, work together, and begin new lives together. And, I don't think that is disrespectful of lives lost; rather I think it would be a fitting tribute to them and the American "spirit."

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 11:01 AM

Kat,

I agree with your last paragraph 100%.   As said previously, there is enough room to create a memorial AND create space for a community to work, play and come together.

As to the sacred ground, it might be just a difference in semantics. I consider historic sites to be "sacred". I have visited local sites such as FDR's home or Edison's laboratory, or homes that date back to the revolution. These sites are sacred, perhaps not in the spiritual sense like others, but as sites of historical importance that do more good as they exist. Auschwitz, Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor and other sites of tragedy will teach new generations - perhaps they will learn the lessons that our generation failed to grasp.   The historic significance of what occured on the site deserves recognition and respect.   Hiroshima has done an admirable job in preserving a rememberance of the tragedy while rebuilding from the ruins.

The remains at the WTC are more than just symbolic. It is a final resting place - more so than the landfill in Staten Island.

We can argue whether it is a war or a crime, in reality all war is a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 11:34 AM

Ah, it may be just semantics, then, Ron. As I have also visited such historic sites, esp. when we lived in New England for 10 years, I understand what you mean. I have a great deal of reverence for such sites, but sacred is a term I usually reserve for where I have a sense of the spiritual.

I felt awe and reverence when in the small schoolhouse where LaFayette and Washington met with the Continental Congress in Connecticut; felt the same thing while walking the streets and visiting the various houses, etc. in Old Deerfield, MA; there were many more places of history etc., but still none I would decribe as sacred.

Anyway, that aside, I am glad we can agree on the need for a memorial and something vibrant, too.:-) Thanks for explaining.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 11:38 AM

Ron, it seems to me that you are attempting to dictate what we should think. It would be easier if you would realize your opinion is but one of many reasonable, sincere, heartfelt opinions of how the site should be used.

As to the "sacred ground" argument. Only two institutions have the authority to confer that status officially--governments and religious institutions. Many people want to see memorials evoke in the observer/visitor, both national authority and religious authority. Others believe they should be kept separate, ie that a memorial be either a national memorial, or a religious memorial. In the case of the WTC site, it will definitely be a national memorial, but my guess is, it will also have some element of the international makeup of the victims. Now, perhaps the little church at the WTC, which was used by the rescue workers, etc. will be included because of the role it played. Is this appropriate? Some will think it is, some will think it is pandering to a particular religion, and think it isn't appropriate at all.

One thing I do find odd, is that this debate isn't occurring in terms of any of the other people "vaporized" on the day. Those who died in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon. I really do think that the spectacle aspect of the WTC is the reason for it.

I visited the site last summer, and yes, it is very disturbing. But I don't think I was disturbed in the same way many Americans are who visit the site. I really wasn't disturbed as much at the loss of life factors, because it was just too abstract for me on a personal level. I am too distant from it, because I didn't know anyone personally who was killed in the attack, and so haven't suffered that loss. The survivors and the victims families all have my empathy and compassion, but I do get angry at the very selective ways the memorializing is being done politically. For instance, 90 some streets in NYC are being renamed to honor mostly firefighters, police and paramedics lost in the attack by Hizzoner the Mayor. Now, I just think that is wrong. I think it would be appropriate to do a city memorial for those city rescue workers who lost their lives, but I don't think this perpetual memorializing of the most popular victims--the NYC rescue workers--are being memorialized while all the other victims (especially those who died in PA & DC) are ignored. Another aspect of the memorializing is the focus on widows, at the expense of all the widowers. That really bothers me too. Lots of families were left without mothers as a result of the attacks, yet we rarely hear about the fathers and children left behind, because it doesn't fit with the mythologizing about the events. We feel much more comforted to see weeping widows, than weeping widowers. We feel much more safe seeing widows struggling than widowers struggling, because that matches our gendered worldview of "how it is supposed to be" in these circumstances.

I was disturbed at many levels when I visited the site. I was disturbed that such a colossal building as the WTC existed (and feel the same way about all the giant skyscrapers, which I think are anti-human in scale, and should be outlawed). I was disturbed at the folly of the US foreign policy as a result of it, now exposed in the gaping hole in the landscape. That was one of the many incongruities and ambiguities that surfaced for me that day. I was disturbed at how the site was being used for Republican political gains--this probably disturbs me more than any other aspect of the controversies surrounding the WTC site. Hell, even the merchandisers hawking WTC tourist wares all around the site didn't bother the way Republicans using the WTC as "holy ground" for political gain are bothering me. Do you suppose it is any coincidence that the mass media propagandizing about the whole thing is tilted towards the Republican tendency to *insist* this is sacred ground now, and the justification for *their* unjust, illegal, and immoral global war?

Those are just some of the reasons why I don't want to see the site mythologized as holy ground--because of the ways it is being used politically to create the Republican nationalist mythology by the Republican mayor of NYC, the Republican governor of NY, and the Republican president of the US. I can't even stand the thought of how they are trying to coopt the memorial for their Republican nationalist agenda at the expense of the victims families at this point, much less the at the expense of lower Manhattan.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 11:59 AM

Here Walmart has tried to purchase two civil war battleground memorials and the George Washington childhood acres.

It was a close vote to defeat them but they keep trying.

Manhatten realestate magnates will end up devoting a tiney plot to 9-11

Much of the site is already being built up again.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 12:00 PM

I think the Japanese did the job well in Hiroshima. The Dome and Peace Park with the accompanying "museum" stands to tell the story while the rest of the city rebuilt. Forget taxes and all that, Manhattan has always been a place for business and living as well and we have to continue living. Both objectives can be accomplished but all will never be satisfied and that's too bad, but to devote the sight entirely to one thing or the other is the greatest wrong.

I am also against RE-naming things after dead guys. I still consider it Idlewild and National and I was glad when Cape Canaveral became so once again. I liked JFK, but that renaming stuff is a crock. I have a feeling that Martin Luther King would be less than impressed by having a street in every city renamed after him...better a rebuilt neighborhood. And have you noticed how little is renamed after Nixon? How about a Federal Penitentiary? "The Richard M. Nixon Memorial Reformatory."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 12:34 PM

The scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki makes the WTC look like a car wreck by comparison. Yet, the memorial, as Spaw notes, wasn't done on a freakishly large and maudlin scale.

I love the idea of a civilian peace garden of remembrance. Two of my favorite memorials are the Irish Famine memorial at the Custom House Quay, photo here, scroll down:

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~pg2/Fammems.html

I think some human sculptures on that scale would be appropriate too.

The other is the Garden of Remembrance sculpture of the Children of Lir being transformed into swans, seen here:

http://www.fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/city/b002/garden-of-remembrance-1.jpg

The Garden of Remembrance in North Central Dublin commemorates those who died fighting for Irish freedom. In the fountain area of the Garden is this statue by Irish artist Oisin Kelly.

The plaque reads:

"In the darkness of despair we saw a vision. We lit the light of hope and it was not extinguished. In the desert of discouragement we saw a vision. We planted the tree of valour and it blossomed.

In the winter of bondage we saw a vision. We melted the snow of lethargy and the river of resurrection flowed from it.

We sent our vision aswim like a swan on the river. The vision became a reality. Winter became summer. Bondage became freedom and this we left to you as our inheritance.

O generations of freedom remember us. The generations of the vision."

I like the idea of using birds to symbolize freedom and liberation. For the WTC, such sculptures could be used as metaphors for the strong air elements of the day, ie the airplanes, the brilliant blue sky, the choking debris cloud, the vapors of the deceased, the raining down of the millions of pieces of office paper...

I also think something like the Vietnam Memorial wouldn't exactly work in this landscape. The WTC site has a very different feel to it than the landscape surrounding the Vietnam Memorial in DC, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:23 PM

Guest, I guess I'm flattered that you think my opinion came across as trying to "dictate" what people should think. If having an opinion and sharing it is dictating, I guess none of us should bother logging on.

Your opinion and views on "holy ground" are certainly well put. I guess we all need to decide what is holy.   In my view (I'm not dictating here) this is an important historic site that needs SOME sort of respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:32 PM

Ron, thank you for clarifying. My point was, it helps to throw in a "IMO" or "In my view" as you did above.

And again, I think we all want to see the site treated with respect. I trust that it will be, even though I certainly don't trust the politicians and developers to do it. I've put all my faith and trust in the survivors and the families of those lost, to be the ones to be sure it is done with respect. I know there isn't agreement among them, but that a consensus among them can probably be reached.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:39 PM

Guest,

I think it should be assumed that any comment posted by ANYONE is "IMO" or "In My View". I threw it in the last post to make a point.   Unless someone says something to the effect "you are all wrong and I'm right", I take it as opinion. I felt a bit put off by being singled out for giving my opinion, but I don't think that was your intention.   We move on.

You are right, we are all in agreement that the site is treated with some respect. It seems that when we all talk, while we may not agee on the particulars, we seem to find a common thread.   

We will see what the final outcome is for the WTC site. I do think that it is good that they are inviting the public to view potential designs and share their opinion.   I hope it is more than a political show. I do think that the second batch of ideas was in response to the outcry after the first batch were presented. Everyone needs to speak up.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:42 PM

If you come to "Ground Zero" by any other way than the tourist side, it is nothing more than another Manhatten construction site--there is nothing about it that would make you notice it--stranger still, though you are acutely aware that the WTC is missing from the skyline, you can't quite find the place that it used to be--

There is nothing about either the skyline or the site that tells what happened there--

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:47 PM

Good point Guest 1:42. I think the visual imagery of the site as being larger, all encompassing, more foreboding etc. than it is in reality is a problem that exists among people who want to see it as such, for whatever their reasons are.

We did, in fact, get lost trying to find the tourist site! Hey--I'm no New Yorker!

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:52 PM

Guest, do you live in the area?

The NYC skyline is not dominated by any one structure anymore. Unless you were aware of the location, don't think you would notice.

I live in NJ and my brother-in-law lives a five blocks from the site. He has a loft with a rooftop patio. The patio was covered with dust and glass as well as other debris. His picnic table was studded with pieces of glass. Now when I visit him now the first thing I notice is how much brighter the area is. The WTC blocked more sunlight then I realized.   I do feel its presence every time I go down to the area.

Now it does look like a construction site. A year ago at this time was quite different. I'm amazed at how quickly they were able to remove the debris from such a monumental mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 02:02 PM

Well, danged, when we get beyond the hair splittin', there does seem to be an agreement that a "memorial" is in order but as I suggested in my earlier post, it doesn't have to be doom and gloom.

I think of the sculpture "garden" at the Hirshorn Museum in Washington, D.C., with it beautiful mix of fountains, gardens and sculpture.

What a fitting way to memeorialize those have come before us and to *celebrate* life.

Now, I only made it one year in "architetcure" in college but it does seem that it is not imimpossible to design a building that rests on four massave corner feet that that elevators and utilities also share and have an open area under the building for such a project. And if it were built with an atrium down the center, it would provide not only an openess but also a building that is user friendly in that where you give up footage, you gain in the innner windowed offices.

Just my two cents worth...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST,GUEST 1:42
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 06:45 PM

I have work that brings me up to NYC often, and I will never forget the shock I felt when I got my first clear view of Manhatten from the NJ Turnpike a few days after 9/11--I will also never forget the pervasive acrid smell, and the painful breathing that everyone experienced but no one wanted to talk about--

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: vectis
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 07:12 PM

Thanks to everyone that has posted. I genuinely was beginning to believe that I was the only one who felt saddened that there didn't seem to be any memorial planned for the site.

When I look at movies that show the NY skyline my eye is now drawn to the WTC. The towers now appear to be disproportionately tall and dwarfed the city. Ron seems to confirm that they affected the lives of those living near them more than they realised.

I still feel that the site should be turned into some sort of memorial but maybe I understand why it WILL be built on, and soon. I think there should be memorials at Washington and PA as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 07:39 PM

Hmmm. Ron, that's an interesting idea about building around the actual footprint. From a construction standpoint, tall buildings require a lot of open space during construction to get them up; an engineer or construction specialist would have to tell you if there's enough space at the site, but it's a great idea. Of course, the buildings won't have to be as tall as the originals.

Maybe a U-shaped building (or "e"), with the footprints an open courtyard, so that the memorial would be available to anyone. You probably could build a building raised up over the space, but I just don't like that idea. No sunlight. No sky.

Of course, the final decision is up to the current lessee of the land, unless the taxpayers of NYC are willing to buy the lease out at a cost of multiple billions of dollars. Ouch.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 07:50 PM

Michael Moore was the only person I heard talk about the pervasive smell of dead bodies for weeks after 9-11

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 08:06 PM

It is looking more and more like a new skyscraper, taller than the WTC, and possibly even taller than the tallest building in the world (in Malaysia) is what will be built.

This is an excerpt from a recent article on it (Dec 18 02) from the CBS website:

"The nine new proposals — the second round of plans to redevelop the site where more than 2,800 people died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack — take a variety of approaches to the 16-acre site in lower Manhattan.

Four of the plans proposed creating the tallest building in the world, topping Malaysia's 1,483-foot Petronas Twin Towers. One recommended a 2,100-foot skyscraper, while another called for a 1,776-foot tower topped with a spire.

"People want to go back up in the sky in some way. There's a sense that we have to heal the skyline," Paul Goldberger, one of the architects, told CBS.

The plans for rebuilding the site and surrounding neighborhood came from seven teams of architects from Berlin, London, Amsterdam, Tokyo, New York and Los Angeles, and were selected from 407 submissions. A choice is expected by Jan. 31.

A first group of plans, released in July, was derided as boring and overstuffed with office space."

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: SINSULL
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 08:59 PM

My nephew, who worked downtown and got himself and his girlfriend out of the area alive, spoke of the smell of dead bodies. He doesn't talk about what he saw that day.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 09:15 PM

I was astonished to realise that what was being done was to cart away the bits of bodies in the dust, to be dumped prior to building some grandiloquent monument to moneynmaking.

The idea that somehow building another skyscraper commerce is a way of registering that the terrorits have not won seems like delusion to me, very convenient for the people for whom moneymaking is the bottom line.

Leaving the space empty, with some of the ruins to crumble away in time, and before long ti become a place of quoet beauty, because thtais what nature does to ruins - that would have been a way of saying to the terrorists "You were wrong about us. We hold some things more important than money." And that would have been a way of turning that wishful hope into a truth, and something good would have come out of it all.

Perhaps the best thing to do would have been to let the families of the dead decide what shold be done, and respect their wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 09:41 PM

McGrath - the debris was sifted before being carted off. Whatever body parts that were found was indeed tagged and checked for DNA for identification. What wasn't found were the numerous victims that literally disintegrated when the building crumbled. Many parts were too tiny to be readily recovered. If you watch the video and see those huge clouds of dust, realize that the dust contained not only the physical elements that made up the building, but also traces of it's contents - including human remains.

Yes, you could smell the bodies for weeks after the tragedy, my brother-in-law lived with it. He said that it wasn't until the winter freeze hit that the smell started to disappear. Also remember that the fire continued to burn until late December of 2001. I live about 10 miles from the site as the crow flies. I don't really think it was bodies, but for a few days after the tragedy we could smell the fire - sort of like burning rubber.

Already pieces of the WTC have been placed in memorials in communities around the NYC area. I believe some pieces have been designated for international memorials as well.   I live on a pond here in NJ which is part of a community park. A piece of steel has been placed in a small memorial that was built in the park. My town lost 5 people which is relatively small compared to other communities.

The site is large enough to fit both new buildings and preserve the footprint of the original WTC.   That idea has been kicking around since day 1 and I would bet that it will indeed be preserved.

It is easy to blame commerce, but in reality commerce isn't the crime.    Making a living is a priority for everyone, and success is not something to be ashamed of. What is a shame is when success comes built on the toil and explotation of others.   I really do feel that we've turned a corner in some respects. Here in the NYC area I can feel a sense of community and a greater sense of helping each other since 9/11. It may sound corny, but people are being nicer to one another. I don't get the same feeling that I had when I walk around NYC before 9/11.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get on a soapbox or anything. This thread has opened up a lot of conversation, and for those of you who do not live in this area I can assure you that this type of conversation is still going on in the area and in the media.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 09:45 PM

So what's supposed to be on top of this monolith? A couple of SAM sites? Geeziz, talk about an invitation to yet another attack.............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 09:48 PM

Spaw, you hit on something that has already been mentioned and what may prevent another skyscraper from being built. Not many companies would rent space on the top floor of another skyscraper at that particular site. Unless they get committment from several high profile companies willing to sign a deal, a skyscraper of WTC proportions won't be in the plan.

It will be something that will be recognizable in the skyline, but I doubt that they will end up with something that tall.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST,GUEST 142
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 04:51 PM

I had hated the WTC from the time it was first conceived--the twin towers seemed like their only purpose was to be tall--they cast a bleak shadow over the neighborhood, as well--I have just seen a model for the space (which is actually rather small: about 750,000 square feet, unless I have been mis-informed) several smaller towers connected by walkways that looks a bit like connecting tictactoe grids--they allow a protected open air memorial at ground level, and alternative avenues for escape from the higher levels--it looks a bit harder to hit dead on, as well.

The space is actually publically owned, by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Also, and this should be food for thought, the towers apparently were originally conceived as 80 and 90 stories, respectively--A Public Relations firm seems to have suggested that they make it the world's tallest building--

Subject: RE: BS: Ground Zero - A war grave?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 10:46 AM

I heard a report on CNN yesterday that 52% of the bodies at the WTC site have been identified to date. They say that identifying remains of the rest will take years.